[Buddha-l] Ecological Buddhism

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Robertupeksa wrote:

> There are many things 'wrong' in this  world.  I do not hope to
> fix them, because I cannot fix them. Indeed,  it would be like
> trying to repair the sea rather than rescuing  people.  Joanna
> Macy's points are fine if taken as a critique of  oneself, but
> could lead us astray, like the quail going out of its range

but if we believe that we cannot fix the world, precisely we are
fixing the world. According Buddhism the world can be repaired in only
one second showing a total perfection in where all beings are liberated.

On the other side, I think you are right in pointing the problems of
J.Macy's thoughts showing the opposition action/contemplation.
It contradicts the basis of Buddhist meditation and the
prajnaparamita, in where the world must be contemplated as a bubble, a
phantom or a dream. The J.Macy fears to non-action summarized by
Joanna K, are historically frequent (In example read the "Le Concile
de Lhasa". P.Demieville, 1952).
Those fears are rooted in a conciliation of samsara and nirvana.
They can drive to the opposite fixation: there is a damaged world
which is the real one, and the perfect world of eradication of dukkha
becomes a distorted perception of the mind. 


> The appeal to inter-dependence is also not going to provide a
> consistent alternative vision, because it is based on
> metaphysical claims that lie beyond experience. [...]
> Inter-dependence may be associated with visions of universal
> compassion, but just  that idea does not sustain universal
> compassion, nor provide a  principle that can give rise to new
> approaches and techniques  adequate to the immense moral
> challenges we face. Morally, inter-dependency also implies
> nothing whatsoever.

at least I don't agree. First, many goals start with metaphysical
claims (i.e: "all beings are equal"). Also, interdependence underlies
universal compassion without being a void metaphysical claim.
In a practical way, you can hear music played with different
instruments while the song is only one for you. In the same way, when
one is able to feel friendliness for all the living beings, he can
observe how this feeling is sustained in no particular being.
The endless multiplicity of beings can become only one objet of
contemplation, and it is possible because multiplicity and
interdependence are already present in the mind. She is not a
new acquired thing. All this is part of bhavana, the Buddhist
cultivation of Mind. The so-called "meditation" unfortunately is
preached in these times only like a self-centered activity with
future universal consequences; here maybe there is a better space
for the J.Macy critics, instead attacking the prajnaparamita teaching.

J.Macy contradictions are logical because today many ecologist people
is starting a serious auto-critique seeing the failure in transmitting
the need of changes in daily behaviors. Interdependence is a very
attractive idea. However, in practical terms it becomes useless 
when she is devoid of a contemplative background. A right appeal to
interdependence can force us to a new way to look the World, and it
can provide more happiness and highest moral conquests. But this
embracing and holistic look is absent in the strategy of Ecologism.
It only exist in the intellectual discourse, not in the message for
the public.
Buddhist interdependence notion was related with Ecology problems
in 1973 by rescuing the philosophy of the Chinese Hua-Yen school.
Inside "Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra", F.Cook, there are
ecological thoughts in quite modern terms. It was published when the
ecological concerns were in an embryonal state and still not present
for the general public. The Hua-Yen school was not only an
intellectual device but it was developed from a contemplative
experience of the world, the awakening to Dharmadatu. 

The ecology crisis in the hands of ecologists suffer of a similar
problem of Hua-Yen doctrine in the hands of scholars. There is a
practical side which is not internalized, and Interdependence becomes
an intellectual tool. We can check how the sum of many factors have
been reduced to only one message: "Save our planet of Global Warning".
Why not a more realistic "Save our planet of our actual system"?.
Maybe because it sounds too much disturbing, perhaps socially
revolutionary. However, the crisis is the sum of many things:
deforestation, species extinction, toxics, economic rules, human
poverty, weapons proliferation, dehumanized mass-media, etc..
When a needed holistic look to this world is denied, the ecological
message becomes another toy for the market. The real needs  (avoid
eating meat, change mass-media, consumerism, new respect for the
animal world, global rules for economy, etc) all this remains in the
academic limbs or they are one-by-one problems.
We look one tree without see the forest. We put green bulbs in home
and later we eat 2 Big-Mac. Countries makes plans to avoid oil while
they invade China with milk and McDonalds.

Precisely, the absence of this contemplative component (an embracing
look to this world in crisis) can be the cause of that failure.
Dears to non-action because the prajanaparamita teaching seem to arise
from a partial and self-centered understanding of Reality and bhavana.

best regards,